• Vancouver at night

Uttering a Threat

The Charge

Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code sets out that everyone who knowingly utters a threat to another person to cause death or bodily harm, or to damage or destroy property, is guilty of an offence. The essence of the offence is that the prosecutor must prove that the accused intended their remarks to genuinely cause the complainant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. There is no requirement that the intended victim be aware of the threat; the offence is made out upon proof that the accused intended the words to cause fear or alarm. In determining whether or not the accused’s statements are a threat, the words must be viewed objectively in the context in which they were spoken. The words must have been uttered with an intent to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

Uttering a threat is a hybrid offence meaning that the Crown has the option of proceeding by indictment and to seek a sentence of up to five years in jail. Alternatively, the Crown can proceed summarily, in which case the maximum sentence is two years less a day. There are no mandatory minimum sentence requirements for uttering threats. Non-custodial sentences are available.

The Investigation

Unlike many other criminal investigations, in threatening charges, the substantive evidence usually comes not from the police, but from the complainant who says you threatened them. Upon receiving the complaint, police will seek out the suspect and attempt to obtain their side of the story.

When contacted by a suspect prior to their arrest, we can be of significant assistance. We will make enquiries to determine who the investigating officer is. Because of the laws concerning solicitor/client privilege, we can act as a “buffer” between our client and police. We can speak on our client’s behalf without risk of creating incriminating evidence against them. We will negotiate to have our client not charged, or if charged, to be released from custody quickly and on the least restrictive terms that are appropriate. Typical release conditions include no contact with the complainant, including face-to-face contact, or indirect contact by phone, text, email or through a third party. Other conditions may include no weapons, no alcohol or other similar protective conditions.

The Defence

The typical defences to threatening charges is to establish doubt that the words were ever uttered or, alternatively, that the words uttered were not intended to be taken seriously by the complainant. Clearly, any evidence from third party witnesses or video or audio recordings will be relevant.

As experienced lawyers, we are able to offer significant assistance to clients who contact us before they are contacted by police. We will contact the police investigator and will strive to persuade police to not take you into custody at all or, alternatively, to release you on the least onerous conditions as possible, as quickly as possible. In our more than 25 years of experience, we have been successful in obtaining non-custodial sentences for the majority of our clients charged with uttering threats. We will strive to resolve your threatening charge with alternative measures, a peace bond or a discharge.

Reent Successes

R. v. R.F. – Richmond Provincial Court

, ,
Charge: Mischief, Causing a Disturbance
Issue: Our client was arrested and charged for disorderly conduct while on an international flight at Vancouver International Airport. What was a just and appropriate sentence in the circumstances?
Result: Upon advising the client to take rehabilitative steps, closely scrutinizing the facts of the case, and extensive negotiation with Crown Counsel, Mr. Gauthier persuaded the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge and restitution to the airline for lost time due to the delay of the flight, including negotiating the restitution amount to less than half of what the airline was claiming. No Criminal Record. No Flight Ban.

R. v. D.M. – Quesnel Provincial Court

,
Charges: Mischief(x2), Assault with aWeapon, Threatening.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate given our client's rehabilitation.
Result: Mr Johnston was able to persuade Crown to enter stays of proceedings on the assult charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge.

R. v. D.H. – Fort Saint James Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the information about our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident, whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to continue wit the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. R. A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charges: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown that persuaaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.W. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charges: Assault x2 (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.N. – Quesnel Provincial Court

,
Charges: Assault (by choking); assault; mischief to property.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the police investigation met the Crown's charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the RCMP investigator which ultimately led to police recommending that no charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No further "no contact" condition. File closed.

R. v. M.L. – Prince George Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be discharged on conditions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the Court which resulted in our client being granted a conditional discharge rather than the conviction sought by Crown counsel.

R. v. M.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the information Mr. Mines provided to Crown about the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether there was a substatial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to not approve any charge with respect to this matter. No further bail conditions. No criminal record.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.